Is being an evangelical atheist a bad thing?
11 August 2008 by Stardust
Many outspoken atheists, like Richard Dawkins, are accused of being evangelical and militant in the way they crusade against irrational and dangerous spiritual beliefs. In the New Statesmen, Carl Packman says of Dawkins:
“Richard Dawkins is at it again - trying to wean the non-converted away from religion this time in his examination of The Genius of Charles Darwin, on Channel 4.
*snip*
Dawkins, in choosing a form of firebrand fundamentalist atheism over the discipline science, is no longer the champion of reason but rather a kind of evangelical against religion.
*snip*
One obvious problem for Dawkins is that he battles to hold two rather inharmonious positions; at once he is the scientist - disciplined in observation and objectivity. But also he is the emotionally charged evangelical atheist.”
In my opinion, Dawkins and others, in order to be a champion of reason, must speak out fervently against religious and spiritual superstitions that threaten science education and scientific research.
“Since the release of his bestseller, Dawkins has been unable to separate the two positions. Gone are the days of the professor dissecting halibut in front of an audience of pre-teens divided into those who are averting their squeamish gazes and those who can’t for the life of them turn away. Now, even in his scientific capacity, Dawkins is belligerent.”
When religious figures speak out against non-believers and talk about how we all need a god in our lives, they are considered to be “passionate” and only wanting what they feel is the best for humankind, but when an atheist does the same thing, only “preaching” against religious superstition and oppression that threatens science, reason and freethinking they are accused of being “belligerent.” The religious folks just want us to be quiet, subdued and to not bring up things that might lead members of their flock to shed their delusional god beliefs.
Packman goes on to say:
It’s quite clear that what the New Atheists are doing is lumping all the religious together in one bundle, just like the religious fundamentalists would do to atheists.
*snip*
In the fight against religious fundamentalism, atheists need to embrace the moderate religious community; they may well find they have more in common than they’d care to admit.
The “New Atheists” are lumping all the religious together in one bundle because all religious beliefs, whether one is a moderate god believer, or a radical god believer, no matter what their interpretation or individual church doctrine, they all still believe in the same god and Bible. If they choose to lump all atheists together, then that is fine with me because we all are the same in that we believe there is no evidence for the existence of god and while we are individuals in the way we choose to express or not express our atheism, we atheists are united in disbelief.
While atheists and the moderately religious may have everyday things in common, when it comes to superstitious sky daddy beliefs, we absolutely do not. While we may be able to “tolerate” each other, no matter how moderate the Christian, according to their beliefs we are to be pitied for not obtaining the imaginary heavenly rewards upon our deaths. And no matter how much they may “tolerate” us, we are judged in life according to their own set of religious standards and religious morals.
As for “embracing the moderate religious community”, I think Packman and others don’t realize just how dangerous the moderate religious are. The problems, as Dawkins see it is that “religious moderates make the world safe for fundamentalists, by promoting faith as a virtue and by enforcing an overly pious respect for religion.”
About being accused of being an “atheist fundamentalist” according to Wikipedia, “Dawkins rejects this label, saying that fundamentalism implies a belief system that is impervious to change, while his atheism is based on the scientific method of reasoning. He says that if new scientific evidence were found that disproved evolution, then he would willingly give up his belief in evolution and natural selection, whilst a genuine fundamentalist would remain firm in his/her belief no matter how much opposing evidence came to light.”
11 August 2008, on 1:03 pm
Personally, I have no problem with Dawkins - in either his point of view or his approach. The problem with all these religious loonies who are so hell bent on controllng everybody’s life is that they want to have it both ways - complete freedom to piss on everyone else’s ideas but protection from comment regarding their own loopy fantasies.
When the pope last visited the states, he was very clear on the point that all efforts to make religion a private matter should be resisted. Well, if it isn’t private, it’s public. If its public, why shouldn’t religion have to withstand the rigors of any other public issue?
Besides, there are dozens of outlets for all these pious parasites? Why not have a platform for committed rationalists?
11 August 2008, on 1:54 pm
I see nothing at all inharmonious about being a scientist and being an atheist firebrand. Frankly, I think the two complement each other quite well. After all, both involve accepting a null hypothesis until it’s falsified.
11 August 2008, on 2:06 pm
Like Brooklyn Boy, I have absolutely no problem, whatsoever, with Dawkins.
Nice, critical thinking style, analysis of Packman’s (Packrat’s?) BS, Stardust.
The term “Evangelical”, applied to an atheist, is where I have a big problem.
Atheists, in my opinion, don’t have any “dogmatic-based” agenda to convert the whole world; as the Christian and Muslim versions of the “Abrahamic” delusion definitely have in their agenda tool kit. (or is it…Abra-hammock or Abe’s-my-ham-cock?)
“Outspoken atheist”…Yes!
“Evangelical?” Fuck, no!
Not unless we start calling ourselves Reverends or Imams (Hi Moms?), Pastor (Passed her?)…or…maybe…
IR-reverend…as in “Ire-filled”…which can coitenly, and easily morph into a pirate-like “Harr-filled!”…?
Now THAT fits me just fine…
“Harr! ChuckA”
Which reminds me, Stardust…
Do we, perhaps, need another…you know…GifS: “Talk as a Pirate Day”?
It’s Monday…and I’m just wondering…
“HARR!”
11 August 2008, on 2:21 pm
One obvious problem for Dawkins is that he battles to hold two rather inharmonious positions; at once he is the scientist - disciplined in observation and objectivity. But also he is the emotionally charged evangelical atheist.”
The implication here is that new atheism is irrational. What position has Dawkins taken that is irrational? Well, see there isn’t one, but Dawkins makes religious people feel icky because he can defend his beliefs and they can’t. That would mean that atheism is the more rational position, and that’s just rank bigotry.
Get it, atheists? If you hold religious people to objective, rational standards, you are a bigot. And militant. And a fundamentalist.
POL POT. STALIN. MAO.
(It’s like a fucking broken record, ain’t it?)
11 August 2008, on 2:22 pm
I’m not sure if I completely agree with Dawkins, but I’ll defend his unbeliefs unto death.
11 August 2008, on 3:26 pm
I’m from the USA, so I’m not familiar with the British educational system other than what I’ve seen in Harry Potter and Doctor Who, but does a professor actually teach “pre-teens” as quoted above?
11 August 2008, on 7:51 pm
I’m from the USA, so I’m not familiar with the British educational system other than what I’ve seen in Harry Potter and Doctor Who, but does a professor actually teach “pre-teens” as quoted above?
Judge for yourself. http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/08/the_genius_of_charles_darwin.php
11 August 2008, on 9:37 pm
I’m definitely a one-bundler.
11 August 2008, on 11:37 pm
I don’t think there’s such a thing as atheist evangelism- or whatever you want to call it. The message being spread, if there is one at all, isn’t “come and join us, our beliefs are better than yours.” It’s more, “your beliefs are stupid and obsolete.” That’s not evangelism. That’s criticism. And as effective and ubiquitous as Dawkins is these days- and as much as I like the Professor, I actually prefer Hitchens’ far wittier, far darker, and far more insulting brand of criticism.
11 August 2008, on 11:47 pm
It’s more, “your beliefs are stupid and obsolete.” That’s not evangelism. That’s criticism.
Exactly
11 August 2008, on 11:57 pm
It’s more, “your beliefs are stupid and obsolete.”
That’s the serious danger of atheist “evangelism”. To the believer, the outspoken atheist is destroying the world. It is nihilism and it is terrifying. For those atheists who have never been religious, you have no idea how unsettling it is.
12 August 2008, on 1:40 am
“For those atheists who have never been religious, you have no idea how unsettling it is.”
As Dawkins is fond of saying- and I paraphrase, “we’re not guaranteed comfort in this life and it’s no reason to abandon reason in search of.”
I was raised Southern Badpiss, at least until I was capable of critical thinking. Say from 6-7 to maybe 12, I kind of observed with varying degrees of humor and frustration. Then, I went whole hog, got dipped in the jet-less not-so-hot-tub they call a “font”- right up under that giant cross. After blow drying my lovely feathered hair in the bathroom downstairs and shucking my wet clothes for dry, I went outside to the parking lot and hung out by my parents’ car until the service was over. By that point, I’d decided that the whole thing was bullshit, no, more than bullshit, a scam on a global scale to prey on the weak of mind, enrich the self-ordained earthly representatives, and, whether intentionally or not, to ultimately thwart human progress.
Would it be easier to go into that cold, dark night draped in a warm, fluffy security blanket, under the influence of some ahistorical MDMA? Sure as shit it would. Would it be fucking awesome to be able to lay the blame for one’s misfortunes and shortcomings off of one’s shoulders? Why not. But, then, when you think about it, both immediate answers are revealed to be cop outs, the closest thing to giving up one can be while still being technically alive. I do take your point, Todd, try yanking that binkie away from a toddler and you get the very same reaction we see from today’s xian spokespeople- except maybe in slightly more age appropriate verbiage.
I reckon it’s our responsibility to bait the bear, as it were, too increase the level of their discomfort wherever and whenever possible. That’s just how I roll…
12 August 2008, on 9:13 am
“For those atheists who have never been religious, you have no idea how unsettling it is.”
And to the religious, do they have any idea of how “unsettling” it is to have your doorbell rung on Saturday morning to tell us that their sky daddy loves us and that if we don’t accept him that we are going to die and burn in everlasting flames?
I didn’t find hearing counterpoints to religion unsettling at all and neither did my husband or kids. It was just “gradual awakening”. If anything, I felt foolish for believing in it for so long (or trying to.)
Even if you “preach” at these fuckers and tell them they are the stupidest asshats on the face of the earth, they are not going to give it up if they are deeply into it. If one is religious and doubting it is a gradual process towards atheism…usually. For others it’s a sudden awakening. For me it was refreshing, and I felt freedom at last from that Sunday bullshit and hypocrisy, lies, and pretenses. I get more peace and a connection to nature just sitting on my deck listening to the birds sing.
12 August 2008, on 10:52 am
I didn’t find hearing counterpoints to religion unsettling at all and neither did my husband or kids. It was just “gradual awakening”. If anything, I felt foolish for believing in it for so long (or trying to.)
I was the same way. In hindsight religion simply didn’t work for me, and it probably never would have. I really tried to believe. I went to church, prayed, read the bible. But that wonderful thing called logic just keep slowly creeping in until it finally overtook the woo completely. I’m now much more happier and content than I ever could have been with religion, so that’s really all that matters!
OT: Here’s a pretty sad story of how religion kills-
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/08/11/remains.found.ap/index.html
That poor kid was just smarter than the adults.
12 August 2008, on 11:04 am
Hmmm…RDZ…
I’m not quite sure whom that, obviously clever, hip-hop shtick video will actually offend more…believers or atheists.
It seems like everybody portrayed in it is a rather obnoxious asshole. From a totally cynical viewpoint, of course…that actually may indeed be true.
In other words…cynically speaking…Earth IS a Planet of complete bullshitting…trying oh-so desperately to be “popular & hip”…assholes; which, logically, and tangentially, would pretty much include ALL of us, of course.
I say that “tongue-in-cheek”, of course; which is, actually, a rather hard way to say it.
[Try saying it that way?]
Yeah, I prefer a MUCH more literate Hitchens approach. In other words…no need for a lot of ultra-programmed, digitally sampled, pseudo-musical noise; which certainly doesn’t say much intellectually. But then, that’s just from an older, longtime professional (live performing style) musician’s POV.
I’m somewhat tempted to link my favorite Hitchens YouTubes; but I’ve already done that fairly recently…if anyone noticed.
Then again, I think all of us EX-believers realize that the overwhelming majority of childhood indoctrinated true-believers are probably “way beyond reaching”, no matter what critical method is used; and are ‘destined’…in a word…to go their graves desperately clinging to their precious, brainwashed, false notions.
Should we care? I guess so. Something, shared by one or more anti-religious skeptics, in OUR pasts; coupled with our own innate reasoning process, greatly helped us to gradually throw off the prison-like, mind controlling shackles of religion.
Like Stardust mentioned:
“Freedom at last”!…
Even if it’s only a “relative” freedom…?
12 August 2008, on 12:40 pm
Writers like this Packman fellow all seem to be upset that certain atheists are strident in their beliefs, yet they observe that same trait in the religious and don’t even notice. They can’t notice the forest through the trees.
12 August 2008, on 12:52 pm
It is also likely that some of these writers are atheists that have yet to come to terms with their beliefs. They rail against the “new atheist” movement when, in reality, they would be part of it. These people decry Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins, etc while reading every last word. In essence, they fear what they are. Humans lash out strongest at that which we fear the most.
12 August 2008, on 2:15 pm
Huh? I posted a comment and it disappeared. It wasn’t offensive or anything…
12 August 2008, on 6:11 pm
^ Sorry, Sarah, that’s happened to a couple of us; I think it’s just a bug in this new package, that’s all.
Checks are in the mail, everyone!
12 August 2008, on 6:44 pm
I didn’t find hearing counterpoints to religion unsettling at all and neither did my husband or kids. It was just “gradual awakening”. If anything, I felt foolish for believing in it for so long (or trying to.)
I keep forgetting that I come from the deep end of the crazy pool. The really deep end. To me it was unsettling. I did come away from the whole thing as a bitter, misanthropic nihilist. One of my few redeeming qualities.
12 August 2008, on 7:42 pm
That’s okay. I understand.
12 August 2008, on 9:05 pm
[...] Is being an evangelical atheist a bad thing? When religious figures speak out against non-believers and talk about how we all need a god in our lives, they are considered to be “passionate” and only wanting what they feel is the best for humankind, but when an atheist does the same thing, only “preaching” against religious superstition and oppression that threatens science, reason and freethinking they are accused of being “belligerent.” [...]
12 August 2008, on 10:16 pm
Todd: “I did come away from the whole thing as a bitter, misanthropic nihilist. One of my few redeeming qualities.”
Always remember, Todd…(ala AA)…”You’re not alone!”
Come to think of it; isn’t there an “atheist scout” merit badge for that?…
to be worn on the LEFT arm only, of course!
What’s that Todd?…
You don’t need no stinking (atheist) badges?
12 August 2008, on 11:43 pm
As someone who was religious, I feel more inclined to be a “militant” or “evangelical” or whatever you want to call it atheist, just because I would rather spare my friends and family from the guilt, shame, and horror of religion. I want to turn on the lights and shock them and put thoughts in their mind until the gears start turning again. I’ve had enough of religion being tolerated to this extreme degree. It’s brainwashing and peer pressure and in any other setting that would be perfectly fine to criticize but religion has been given a get out of jail free card for some ridiculous reason.
So we’re just changing the rules of the game, that’s all. And of course it scares the Xtians. For many, they’re losing a sense of power. For others, they’re losing their sense of security. It’s hard to believe in yourself when you’ve spent your whole life thinking someone else held the reins.
13 August 2008, on 8:03 am
I am uncomfortable with evangelism from either side… if by that we mean loud pushy attempts to change others’ beliefs. Any change has to come from inside anyway. The only time I’ve “pushed” my atheism is when I refused to “say grace” at my own table in my own house over a meal that I cooked. Even I have my limits.
On the other hand, one reason the god belief is the default is that it is still so pervasive. Children are born into a world where all the grownups already hold a set of assumptions. Later they learn that there is no proof that any gods ever existed. It’s the biggest conspiracy ever, and people need to hear that there are happy, ethical, generous, good natured non-believers out there.
13 August 2008, on 9:17 am
Orzo:
I think you’re right. Gob is like Santa Claus. Kids believe in both, and since adults find disbelief in Santa Claus socially acceptable (if not a requirement) then they only have to worry about their other fictitious daddy in the sky.
13 August 2008, on 10:41 am
I have a lot of respect for Richard Dawkins. I have never found him to be anything but rational and reasonable in his position. The problem is simply that churchies can’t stand to be questioned and anything that does is an evil threat to be attacked and brought down. [Basically, what Todd said]
Screw ‘em.
If they don’t like atheist philosophy and ideology perhaps they can find another planet to live on.
Otherwise they can stfu.
I’m personally sick of ignorant fools trying to fit atheism into a religious skin. It is NOT a religion. Just because god botherers need mystical unknowns to make life worth living doesn’t mean the rest of us do.
Nor does it mean that the rest of the planet is required to submit to their superstitions so they can be ‘comfortable’ in their delusions.
Not one of these religious twits gives a damn that their deliberate ignorance upsets me. No one cares that their particular brand of prepackaged holy hate and submission is offensive to me. Why should I be forced to play along? Why can’t they give me the same courtesy they are demanding? I don’t want to be constantly bombarded with religious idiocy. Do you think a single one of them could comprehend that?
Not likely. Not when there’s a magic fairy whispering in their ear that I need to be “saved”.
S0 you say you and your god are offended charlie church? Well let me pour you a big cup of “Sucks to be You”. Life is offensive. Suck it up. Or as Denis Leary so accurately put it “Life sucks buy a fucking helmet”.
The entire idea that voicing ones atheism is some how joining the ranks of the evangelicals is utterly ridiculous. I do not need a magical invisible ‘great gazoo’ type character following me around all day to make my life worth living or keep me in line. I do not care about anyone’s superstition and I do not ‘embrace’ any so called ‘moderate’ position. Religion is a waste of time and energy and the evil it brings to the world far out weighs any small individual good it might provide for a limited few.
13 August 2008, on 2:50 pm
And this is why we need to get the t-shirt, hat (or thong), license plate frame, and other things with this motto…
You know, just in time for the holiday season…
14 August 2008, on 8:39 am
Bob:
Those are wickahd pissah! I’m thinking it would be nice to have one that says:
“Believing in God means never having to take responsibility.”
14 August 2008, on 10:00 am
^or “Believing in God means never having to say you’re sorry.”
Though my personal favorite, a relic from my college radio days-circa 89-90, has to be Negativland’s “Christianity Is Stupid. Give Up.” shirt.
My skin is a lot less pale now and I’ve gained some weight…
15 August 2008, on 9:19 am
Raindogzilla:
Or, “Reichwing KKKristian assholes would beat me down for wearing this!”, hmmm. Maybe not.
15 August 2008, on 10:33 am
Richard Dawkins is just awesome!
Anyway, if people want to get offended, then that’s their problem; because I have no control over what other people choose to allow to offend them. And neither, I suspect, does Dawkins.
15 August 2008, on 5:02 pm
It’s not considered polite (at least when I grew up) to talk politics and religion. For many people, these topics bring out the worst emotions.
So, there’s no getting around the fact that people will get peeved when you question their myths.
To split hairs over the means by which someone discusses religion is a waste of time, IMO.
Dawkins may be more vocal - and abrasive. But, the response he gets is probably merely an amplified anger that would exist if someone politely and more quietly questioned the faith of god botherers.
My only gripe is how the media generalizes Dawkins to portray all non-believers as being angry old men - angry at god, of course.
But, then again, the media is also made up of god botherers and this is perhaps the way they show their anger at having their pet myths questioned.
It’s almost like attacking someone’s parents by questioning their religion. Even though most people would readily admit that they didn’t do much thinking when it came to following in their parent’s footsteps, they hold onto to it like its solid scientific fact that should be off-limits to inquiry and doubt.
21 August 2008, on 5:21 am
Ah, the religious are like children taught not to use profanity.
The adult might get mad or flummoxed and say, “Fuck that shit!” The religious person says, “Screw that stuff!” and hopes that the Baby Jesus can’t put words into an emotional context.
They use a form of Orwellian “Newspeak” to redefine what they don’t understand (atheism) as something they do understand (stupidity).
Thus, any atheist who dares openly talk to another person about the irrationality and nonsensical nature of religion is automatically labeled an “evangelical atheist.” And any atheist who uses naughty words and flat-out says “Religion is stupid” is a “fundamentalist.”
And this is comfortable for them. Now, the scary demon-spawn who don’t believe in their ALMIGHTY AND INFINITELY POWERFUL LORD are people just like them, who are enthralled by a sort-of “priest” or “reverend” (Darwin, Harris, Hitchens, or the “atheist du jour”) to simply repeat what they are told until it becomes an unquestionable dogma. To that end, I’ve seen many an indignant Christian commentator refer to “The God Delusion” and other such atheist-centric tomes as atheist “scripture.”
This is the only thing they understand, but try so very hard to. Atheism must be a religion just like theirs because (Duh, Heathen!) they all don’t believe in what Christians believe in. Regardless of the fact that atheists are Democrats and Republicans; liberals and conservatives; Redskins fans and Cowboys fans; skydivers and acrophobes; lovers of “Hudson Hawk” and horrible, backwards, scoundrels who say that “The Hawk” is sub-par cinema (blasphemers and disgusting people, all).
And it’s tres ironic that any Christian lightly throws around the term “evangelical” considering that it is a very, very Christian term which they use to identify themselves. And it’s always the most annoying, devout Christians who insist on referring to “evangelical atheists.” That’s just pure, lovely irony.
21 August 2008, on 5:26 am
Oops, sorry!
Didn’t proofread that last comment as well as I thought.
Disregard the “but try so very hard to” bit. The original paragraph (which was completely different) had a “don’t” in front of the “understand,” but that doesn’t matter now, does it?
Goddamnit, I hate typos… I wish they would DEI!